[140] Although this Court has jurisdiction to depart from its earlier decisions, counsel cited the decision of this Court in Jasbir Singh Rai & 3 Others v. Tarlochan Singh Rai & 4 Others61 and argued that to ensure predictability, certainty, uniformity and stability in the application of the law and on the doctrine of stare decisis, this Court should be slow in reversing its decisions. [141] Counsel further submitted that under Article 163(7) of the Constitution, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to create law, order and solidity where there is conflict in decisions over similar matters in the lower courts. To do otherwise, the Court would give rise to anarchy. Referring to the article by Daniel A. Farber & Suzanna Sherry62, he maintained that once the Court renders itself in interpretation of the Constitution it can’t depart from such an interpretation. [142] On his part, the Attorney General submitted that presidential elections, being sui generis in character, the standard of proof varies between the balance of probability to beyond reasonable doubt depending on the allegation of irregularity or non –  compliance with the electoral laws in issue. He cited the case of Simmons v. Khan63 in support of that proposition. [143] Besides the burden of proof, the law also imposes a degree of proof required to establish a fact. The extent of the proof required in each case is what, in legal parlance, is referred to as “the standard of proof.” Black’s Jasbir Singh Rai & 3 others v. Tarlochan Singh Rai & 4 others, Petition No. 4 of 2012; [2013] eKLR. Daniel A. Farber & Suzanna Sherry, ‘Judgment Calls: Principle and Politics on Constitutional Law, (2009 10(2) Engage 135. 63 Simmons v Khan EWHC B4 (QB) 2008. 61 62 Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            57  |  P a g e